The main legal point established in the judgment is that there cannot be an injunction in respect of an unascertained or undisputed property, and the entitlement to succession under the Mysore Hindu Women's Right to Property Act of 1933 must be determined based on the order of succession as per the Act.

( 1 ) THE points to be considered in this appeal are:- (1) Whether there can be any order of Temporary Injunction in respect of a property wherein plaintiffs claimed that they have an undivided share? (2) Whether as per Section 6, sub-section (2) r/w Section 4 of Mysore Hindu womens' Right to Properly Act of 1933, plaintiffs are entitled to Succession to property? (3) Whether the Succession should go according to the order as mentioned in those two sections vix. , by way of succession or by survivorship? (4) Whether as per Section 6 (2) of the Act inspite of the words used 'male' or 'female', can it be said that both male and female succeeds to the properly simultaneously or male excludes female, son excludes widow and daughter, etc. ? (5) Can there be an injunction order even in the absence of a prima facie case made out as on the date of filing the suit and in the absence of balance of convenience? (6) even when it is shown thai plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case when greater hardship is going to be caused to the defendant No. 3 if an injunction is granted, is it not proper to decline to grant injunction provided it is shown the harm or injury that is going to be caused to the plaintiff can be adequately and effectively compensated at a later stage when suit decreed in favour of the plaintiffs?"

( 2 ) KEEPING the above ingredients, now this Court has to sec whether the Trial Court was justified in refusing to grant an injunction as claimed by the plaintiffs or not.

( 3 ) A few facts arc as follows: That in the year 1952 one Chinnappa Mudaliar (father of plaintiffs 1 and 2), one subramani, another Muniswamy and the first defendant were the owners of two items of property of which suit schedule property, a portion in Item No. 2 which measures about 18' x 80' is one. During the year 1952 Chinnappa Mudaliar died leaving behind him plaintiffs 1 and 2, the two daughters, his sons Subraniani and Muniswamy and defendant-1. Thus succession opened as he died intestate. the properly in question was a self acquired property of Chinnappa Mudaliar. As on the date of his death, both plaintiffs were unmarried.

( 4 ) ON 17-10-1956 defendant-1 and her two sons Subraniani and Muniswamy sold the schedule property to one Aralappachar, from whom defendant-3 who is one of the partners of Vijaya enterprises, purchased the schedule property on 21-9-1987 for a valid consideration under a registered sale deed. Pursuant to the sale deed daled 21-9-1987, 3rd defendant who is respondent herein, proceeded to construct a complex on either sides of the property belonged to him including the schedule property which is abutting the other properly, on which the plaintiffs have no claim.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, at no lime their share in the schedule property was sold to any one. the transfer, if any, made either by defendant-1 or Subraniani and muniswamy brothers of the plaintiffs, not binding on them. After marriage they were staying in their husband's houses. Only recently when they came to the premises they saw some workers demolishing the old houe existing on the schedule property. On enquiry it was made out that defendant-3; rehaed it on 21-9-1987. they immediately rushed to the concerned officer and after btaining certified copies of the sale deed felt that the approach of defendant-3 in proceeding to put up a construction on the site belonging to them is incorrect. Hence, they filed a suit for the following reliefs:-" (I) Declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/5th share in Item No. 11 of the plaint schedule and that the sale deed executed by second defendant in favour of third defendant daled 21-9-1987 in respect of Item No. II of plaint schedule docs not affect the plaintiff's right, title and interest in respect of their 2/5th share there in, and also the sale deed dated 17-10-1956 executed by 1st defendant and the same does not affect plaintiffs right to their 2/5th share. (ii) For partition and separ